Whether a commercial product using humor is subject to the same analysis under the Lanham Act or must receive heightened First Amendment protection

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondent VIP Products LLC’s business model is based on marketing and selling dog toys that intentionally use the trademarks and trade dress of well-known companies, in a way that courts have deemed likely to confuse consumers about the source of the toys and to tarnish the reputation of such companies, including petitioner Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a commercial product using humor is subject to the same analysis applicable to other products under the Lanham Act, or must receive heightened First Amendment protection from claims, where the brand owner must prove that the defendant’s use of the mark either is “not artistically relevant” or “explicitly misleads consumers.” 2. Whether a commercial product’s use of humor renders the product “noncommercial” under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(¢)(3)(C), thus barring as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Lanham Act. (1)